UNITED
NATIONS,
February 4 --
As the draft
resolution on
Syria came to
a
head in the UN
Security
Council,
Russia's
Ambassador
Vitaly Churkin
called a
closed door
meeting
Saturday
morning on one
page of
amendments
(which Inner
City Press obtained and
exclusively
published,
here.)

The
consultations
were limited
to the Number
One ambassador
of which of
the Council's
15 members.
They came out,
and after a
half hour
lull, voted on
the
draft
resolution
without
amendments.
Russia vetoed,
as did China.

US
Ambassador
Susan Rice
called it
"disgusting"
and UK
Ambassador
Mark
Lyall Grant
was
"appall[ed]."

Loulichki
of
Morocco,
stated sponsor
of the draft
resolution,
would not
answer
which of the
amendments had
been the deal
break, telling
Inner City
Press to ask
Vitaly
Churkin. As he
said this,
Ambassador
Rice to the
side of the
stakeout
indicated that
unlike
Loulichki, she
would
answer this.

"this
is
to answer your
question,
Matt: What was
unacceptable,
first and
foremost, was
the amendments
that would
have rewritten
the Arab
League plans,
both Arab
League
plans-the one
of November
2nd, which
both parties
have agreed to
and committed
to but the
Syrian
government
hasn't
implemented
but which
indeed the
Russian
Federation
has
supported....
They were also
not offered
during the
course of the
week when we
were engaged
in meaningful
efforts at
negotiations
but rather at
the 11th hour
with a request
that the vote
be delayed
until some
indefinite
point next
week." [Video
here, Min
18]

UK
Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant, as
transcribed by
the UK Mission
to the
UN, said

"one
of
the amendments
put forward by
Russia this
morning was to
suggest
watering down
the demand
that had been
accepted by
Assad three
months
ago to
withdraw
military
forces from
the cities on
the very day
when
they [the
Syrian regime]
were using
tanks and
artillery to
kill their
people, I
think was what
persuaded most
people that we
could not
wait any
longer and we
would have to
go to a vote
and that
countries
would have to
stand and up
and be
counted."

The
problem
is, the
Russian
amendment
reads as
follows:

Para
4 (c). Add at
the end of
subpara: “…in
conjunction
with the end
of attacks by
armed groups
against state
institutions
and quarter of
cities and
towns”

At
the
stakeout, on
UNTV, Inner
City Press
read out loud
this language
to Lyall
Grant to get
his reaction.
Video here,
Minute 27. But
in the UK
Mission
transcript,
the question
is made
vague:

"Q:
What
was
specifically
unacceptable
about that
Russian
amendment?"

Perhaps
there
is some
protocol of
changing the
questions that
are asked. Or,
in fairness,
of only
transcribing
the answers,
while
approximating
the question.
It made a
difference in
this case; a
subsequent
speaker
hearkened back
to the
question that
was asked of
Lyall Grant,
but the UK
put out a
transcript
without the
question in
it. The
UK transcript
has Lyall
Grant answer
the
untranscribed
question:

"The
suggestion
was to change
the sequence.
That somehow
the armed
groups
would have to
withdraw
first, and
then the
regime
forces."

Inner
City Press
asked, not
softly,
doesn't "in
conjunction"
mean at the
same time? But
that's not in
the UK
transcript.

When
Vitaly
Churkin came
to the
stakeout, he
zeroed in on
this, citing
Inner City
Press'
question --
left
untranscribed
by the UK
Mission -- and
saying
that Lyall
Grant
misquoted his
amendment.
Churkin said,
video
here from
Minute 39:30:

"where
we
did say that
the troops
must pull out
of the cities
in
conjunction,
as Matthew
correctly
quoted from
our amendment,
with a
pullout of the
armed groups
who were
trying to take
control of
various cities
and quarters
in various
cities. For
some reason
ambassador
Lyall Grant
chose to tell
you there was
a suggestion
that
they should be
pulling first.
I have no idea
where he took
that from.
This is the
problem we
face,
unfortunately,
in the
Council. Some
colleagues
dealing with
the media
choose to
present a
rather bizarre
interpretation
of proposals
made by the
Russian
Federation."

Then
again,
Churkin also
said he was
puzzled at
Inner City
Press'
read-out of
his
11 bis,
"optional"
amendment, “Expressing
support
for the broad
trend of
political
transition to
democratic,
plural
political
systems in the
Middle East."

Some
saw
that as a
swipe at some
of the
resolution's
sponsors,
perhaps the
same ones of
whom Syrian
Ambassador
Bashar
Ja'afari, in
the chamber,
accused of not
allowing women
to attend
soccer game.
(One online
pundit
replied, "That
would be
Iran." But
there are
others,
including US
allies.)

French
Ambassador
Gerard Araud
did not take
any questions
about the
amendments,
but said on
his own that
he had been
willing to
show
flexibility
and insert the
word
"extremist
groups" for
"armed groups"
as those to be
dissociated
with. Inner
City
Press was
ready to ask
further, but
it did not
happen.

But
Inner
City Press
asked German
Ambassador
Wittig about
what Araud had
said, about
flexibility.
Wittig replied
that "we would
have
been lenient
on one or two
things." Which
ones?

A cynic
-- or analyst
--
might describe
Saturday's
proceedings as
theater, with
some countries
try to show
their home
audience how
hard they are
pushing,
despite
knowing the
resolution
would be
vetoed and
that Russia
and China
cannot really
be made to
feel ashamed
about it.